Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37964460›Full record

ArticleHealthcare informatics research2023

Evaluating the Landscape of Personal Health Records in Korea: Results of the National Health Informatization Survey.

Kyehwa Lee, Yura Lee, Jae-Ho Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare informatics research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kyehwa LeeDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yura LeeDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jae-Ho LeeDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

Korea Health Industry Development InstituteMinistry of Health and Welfare HR21C0198
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study examined the adoption and utilization of personal health records (PHR) across Korean medical institutions using data from the 2020 National Health and Medical Informatization Survey.

methodsSpearheaded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and prominent academic societies, this study surveyed PHR utilization in 574 medical institutions.

resultsAmong these institutions, 84.9% (487 hospitals) maintained medical portals. However, just 14.1% (81 hospitals) had web-based or mobile PHRs, with 66.7% (28 of 42) of tertiary care hospitals adopting them. Tertiary hospitals led in PHR services: 87.8% offered certification issuance, 51.2% provided educational information, 63.4% supported online payment, and 95.1% managed appointment reservations. In contrast, general and smaller hospitals had lower rates. Online medical information viewing was prominent in tertiary hospitals (64.3%). Most patients accessed test results via PHRs, but other data types were less frequent, and only a few allowed downloads. Despite the widespread access to medical data through PHRs, integration with wearables and biometric data transfers to electronic medical records remained low, with limited plans for expansion in the coming three years.

conclusionsApproximately two-thirds of the surveyed medical institutions provided PHRs, but hospitals and clinics in charge of community care had very limited PHR implementation. Government-led leadership is required to invigorate the use of PHRs in medical institutions.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareElectronic Health RecordsMedical InformaticsPatient ParticipationPersonal Health Records

Identifiers

PMID37964460
PMCPMC10651406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.